tv [untitled] April 14, 2014 6:30am-7:01am PDT
attention that the barbecue or whatever it can be harmful to getting couple of or whatever. thank you, thank you thank you very much. >> okay. we he can hear from the permit holder now. >> . as soon as they clear out. >> sorry can you clarify would both of us get 3 minutes each. >> combined. >> i'll speak briefly the terrace is a elaborate plan this is in the original plan and it was throughout the course of the appeals and the approvals. thank you. >> sorry.
kevin while the owner on post. i have to express a lot of frustration with the process. i appreciate the different times that somebody gets to come to and have a problem with the design or whatever but as the owner i'm in the middle here. and having to deal with the fact that every time it's something new that's gets addressed some new complaint and today first time we were revisiting something that was clarified in previous hearings where the commission, users and the planning department all resolute in favor of the design including the fact it's close to the wall and every time the appellant raises something it's bigger or causes problems with the secured or other people, that there's a,
you know, a change to the process, after you've filed a complaint we started the construction there's no valid concern it's just a conscious i don't want you to do anything with our property it's simply a blank wall that has no bearing on anything she does or she has no interest in anything about what i do with my property the enjoyment of my open space. i'm asking for the dealing with the issues at hand and the things she's brought up continue to be addressed and every time he go through this i have to go through this and explain the same things over and over again and trying to express that
frustration. i feel like i'm following the rules and my architect is following the rules and everybody keeps saying we're following the code. so here i am. expressing that frustration about well, what can i do differently. we've met with alice on occasion because the administer asked us to do that we've responded to the situations before she hired a lawyer when they asked for security concerns we met with her, she was offered an alternative plan she rejected it and saying wait a minute, i don't reject is anymore >> what you have is not code
that compliant it's based on a variance. >> right >> it raise a question in his mind if you moved your entire decks and stair situation 3 feet to the east you would have the building to maintain those walls at the present time, and not have to put in a firewall which saves you money, and you maintain exactly what you're asking for if my fellow commissioners agree with that. >> i think the point a that's been made is you couldn't go without a firewall and a space important garbage or very sincerely, man, i would have to go like this for 20 feet to
clean it. >> you have your edge of the deck. >> having you have to have your firewall 5 feet away. >> the building department said 3 feet. >> it's 5 feet with this type of it's an r-2. >> that's the clarification. >> in a 3 unit building it's 5 feet. i just realized it's 3 you unit 5 feet >> if you did a preapplication and asked for 5 feet you might get it i know i've seen less than 5 feet but 5 photo on 3 units that's the unfortunate part here. >> well, i tried. >> mr. t anything further.
no? >> no. i think just a few clarifications. so some of the discussions has been about increasing the height of the firewall or moving the deck structure if the firewall heightened were to be increased the entitle of the deck and firewall structure is in the required rear yard if you increase the size of the structure including the firewall that would trigger a new variance and additionally shifting the existing deck and stairwell date of birth up to the administer to determine if this will go trigger a new variance and just to clarify also the planning code basically says if you involuntarily demolish any part of our deck or
building and rebuild even if it's in exactly in kind it has to meet the current code requirement the only exception is you can replace the egress with the smallest lapd structure that the landing code will require without getting a variance safety issue in this situation it was not merely a landing structure but a deck structure and that was proposed primary to provide usable open space to the 3 units that are on the side because the building was historically built far deeper than the code allows and not much of 0 rear yard so that's why the deck structure was allowed to be rebuilt and the rear yard to provide the popping for the 3 units that are
there. to briefing touch on the point commissioner fung was discuss g discussing. refer to it again. okay. i think the concept was the property has two property a property and a deeper property than the other side and the intent was to you know the choice where do you put the deck or where next to someone's rear yard open space the preference was to persian it towards the blank wall to minimize the effect to the neighbors and this was supported by the planning
department. that's all i have >> that's itself visible fact not dealing with the sound. >> in terms of privacy and in terms of proximity and generally neighborhood enjoy to have that away from their property if at all possible. >> thank you. >> okay commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i don't see any issues with the i mean, i heard the issues articulated by the appellant but seems like that is code compliant and the design is to create a space that is usable and, you know, i'm not quite sure what and i'm expecting to
hear the issues with respect to the positioning nipping to the other properties seems like the logical space to put it in as well, you know what you had to work with so my inclination deny to appeal and uphold the permit. >> i'll agree with that. >> okay. yeah. let's go back one step. i'm supportive of the zoning administers variance i think that is unusual situations are much older building with a small rear yard the variance on the rear yard and the non conforming and a half of the stair i'm supportive of that.
the question for me it's not the fire issue because that is prevalent throughout our city what's problematic is the fact in close quarters sound contributions are the most irritating the planning department the stairs took up the rear yard right up to another united another building. and you could hear everything through it. the guys moving his garbage can 3 decks up you could hear it in somebody's bedroom that's my main point. i was trying to offer a
compromise by moving it away for less options for impact noise that's difficult to hide >> i couldn't disagree their using outside voices i like to say to my children. i take it wondering with the fire external wall if this absorbs sound >> if it only goes up. i'm sorry i don't see noise as being one of the issues raised by the appellant >> i'm raising that. >> right. i mean - okay. okay. i'm prepared to move to deny the appeal and uphold the appeal as
code compliant. >> sir, when our ready. we have a motion from sxhuveng to uphold the permit it's code compliant. on that motion >> commissioner fung. no. commissioner president hwang commissioner lazarus. commissioner honda. thank you. the vote is 4 to 1 this permit is upheld on that basis. we'll call our last item appeal. for kenneth vs. the city and it's on thud avenue protesting the ownerships on 2012 to non-associates to add one bath at the attic level and to
approve the application attic sprinkler under a separate issue. >> good evening president lazarus i'm appealing the permit application. at 715, 22nd avenue part of the brief talks about the concerns about the quality active factors we would have express if there was notification or some type of communication if the permit holder we had no idea of until we saw it being built. we struggled with the decision because we're not wanting to cause any problems but we
thought we noted to say something and express our concerns. my main concern after we filled the appeal was the method it was approved. my statements are primarily fact driven so i'm going to be reference a lot of the documents the building plans that were submitted. i first wanted to show the 2013 application shows the number of the existing stories is 3 and proposed stories is 3 we established the fact that is a 3 story building. in the permit application for the one being appealed foiled on february 12, 2014, the permit holder says the existing storage
is for proposes for saying we're not adding a story. i don't know what - there's a conflict cha what is existing and existing open this actual permit. we don't understand how he can reach the conclusion that's one of the problems we feel this should say it's a 3 proposal the scope of work to add a level of occupancy and have the four don't rememberers in the back. furthermore, item 17 doesn't state the additional height to the building and we show the adding height will be increased from 33 to 39 feet according to the plan and the photograph.
i want to move on to the building permit plan submitted by the building permit holder. on his summary page he indicates in this four column diagram his statement of what's existing and proposed. again indicates the 3311 inches and proposal no change. if you look at the plan elevation diagram existing all of a sudden the height increased significantly. this is the height elevation you you can see the third floor starts as 28 feet. sorry. 28 feet maximum height 39 feet
two inches this is not his proposal but saying what's existing. it's not indicated on the summary sheet we've reviewed the 2013 and other permit they say this structure is a 33 foot tall structure. we feel he made this statement so he could he could claim it's under the existing roofline. we have pictures to show they're actually building is already existing the current roofline. on exhibit i this is midway during the destruction. this is the existing roof height represented by this darker
triangle. we feel this is exactly how it is it is a 33 to the. the dormers he's building whatever at the top is clearly exceeding the revolver line. >> can you put that back up. this is taken directly across the street >> yes. >> and you're saying that dark portion is the slope of that existing roof. >> yes. >> asking questions. >> okay. please continue >> we feel that since dollars another picture while they're doing construction. >> look at that.
>> from our angle we feel this roof has on changed the angle has been step end and the height increased. dollars another additional building area that already explodes this new roof area so we don't agree this shouldn't have been approved without any notification that exceeds the new roofline they don't state that as part of their project. with all of those go discrepancies and their plan we don't feel this permit should have been approved and requesting you deny this permit.
that's all at this time any questions from anyone? no. >> no. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> so good evening madam president and members of the board. we have a case that is very straightforward and basically, what was approved was rightly approved by the planning and building department. i didn't hear about the other complaints or their allergies >> what we have is we have to concentrate on the.comers. the planning code stated you can
have a don't rememberer that's more than 8 by 8 feet and no closer to the properties by eight or ten feet. what's approved it's approved by 21 feet and from the front property line and pulled back by 3 photo and what the code says the entire edition of the don't rememberers shouldn't exceed 20 feet but we calculated that of a space of one hundred and 54 that's not possibly don't rememberer we are adding optional be one hundred and 76 it's 19.5 percent of the roof area. so basically, all the planning has done we don't need to go
into too much of the detail the problem is a problem they're right is you see what is being constructed there is not what's approved in the planned basically, we're asking without going into too much fanfare we want to make sure what the planning department approved what the don't rememberer goes above the revolver it makes it the same height as the building we that's not clear. - you can see the outline of the don't rememberer her you can see pits - it's below the roof. the contract the construction
and went about it in the wrong way ambassador we're asking is we believe they should go back to the permit holder and they're willing to construct or reconstruct that was actually approved by the planning department. another thing to take into account is that this is a subject the appellants property is this one. which is obviously shorter but if you look at this here is that if you look at the appellants property the lots is 57 feet
deep it's substandard and small their building goes a lot deeper than the subject building we're talking about pr the building the permit holder the lot is one hundred and 20 feet so basically, we're looking at is trying to build a house that's commemorate of the size of the lot he can go to another 15 feet on the lot but he has done to create habitable space not to be intrusive for the neighbors. if you look at the oz are the buildings we have this did the permit buildings building this
is about 7 to 10 feet shorter it doesn't go all the way to the front property line it stops here. the appellants property it her. the lot stops her so he occupies almost the entire lot important sorry so he occupies almost the entire lot if we drug our building all the way to here we're going to block this neighbors and the other one to avoid that we can have up to a couple of thousand square feet he has a right so he can have that but he decided to have one hundred and 6 square feet area so have it for the building.
so we believe that what the planning department approved was correct and within the code what was constructed was wrong so go back and do the construction according to what the planning department approved. thank you. >> thank you. we can hear from the departments now, mr. t >> good evening corey from the planning department staff. there are several questions one were the plans that were submitted and approved and reviewed properly second with the plans accurate and third was the work consistent with the work that was approved under the permit. to tackle the first issue in
terms of don't rememberers and how the planning department handled those dollars the administrative bulletin that says dollars minnesota don't rememberers their set back temple feet from the front and they don't represent modern 20 messenger of the horizontal area of the roof they're so small essentially and minor that you can get those approved 134 east without notification and equip in extreme circumstances no sequa review and approved over the counter. based on the plans the project appeared to meet those criteria and we felt those plans were submitted proprietorly, however,
the existing at the time the roof of the structure was actually of the height that was called out. also want to point out in terms of the listed height on the cover of the plans i can't speak for the permit holder but that maybe a result of how the code measures height. when you have a slope roof we don't take it from the peak but the mid point between the midline and the peak even though the peak on the plans, you know, showed a height ever 39 feet the mid point maybe in between that's where the lower point came from, however, i can't speak for the permit holder. based on pictures that we have
seen of the construction it's a happened historical photos dbi received a complaint notice of violation for exceeding the scope of work the planning department needs to look at that if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> mr. duffey. >> commissioners i have a copy of notice of violation that the department issues i don't believe that the board has it i'll be happy to share it with you what happened after the permit got issued. victor can i have